It is not what warcraft is supposed to be or ever was. There was never a time where it was mandatory to do dailies, the closest being sons of hodir, I would much rather grind dungeons all day than to do quests, and I was disappointed that they removed that option.

And the state of PvP atm is just sickening, hopefully they can get sorted out by 5.1.

Dailies aren't mandatory. If you don't want to do them, don't. If your guild is going to kick you for that, then leave. You always have a choice. It's up to you whether you follow through with those choices.

They used to round numbers, so following the system that Cata was graded by this would've been a 9 too. I think some dude realized that their scores all started to look the same because of it. Regardless, score systems blow and they need to go away. But the big press sites like ign and gamespot will never do that.

I would personally give it a 8/10 so far, everyones final review should be when the expansion is over. Look at Cataclysm, it may have started very well with a lot of promisses, but it ended up being dogshit.

who cares about ign score, it comes down to what one guy who write review thinks about game. His opinion isnt any more valid then next guy. btw they gave cata 9 ...

Honestly though, rating for MMOs are from first impressions and room to grow. I mean, MMOs are a type of game that really, if they change enough, could be done a biannual review, just to update on patches and the like. I mean, hell, early Cata was pretty awesome at least how I thought. But it was also a few months in that WoW started bleeding numbers.

I mean, I still am holding by my opinion of WoW if MoP is a success by checking out the end of the next two quarters and just how many players are running around by then.

Eh it's about right I guess. Me, I would give it a 9 so far. 1 point off only because they made very few new models for the new creatures and monsters just mainly new skins, was kind of disappointed with that but other than that I love it.

Most reviews are off the questing experience. Cata was kind of graded of the new 1-60 plus the 80-85. MoP is just the 85-90. I think the score is a good range, questing was a lot of fun despite some of the scaling was a bit off.

Its silly, I remember a week into cata, people loved the game, it was not until a month into it that it felt bad. Im getting bored of mop faster than cata, artificially prolonging content though mandatory rep grinds just isnt for me.

What part of them are mandatory, or even are artificial? you can't gain valor faster than rep. you have 5 weeks to get revered with them all. 5 weeks. and they could have just as easily made shando and celestial come out 2 months later, but god forbid ya gotta work for it. you dont need chants for them, and you can just as easily do heroics and raid for gear. ttyl

---------- Post added 2012-10-06 at 04:36 PM ----------

Originally Posted by frengo123

U can rate Mop only at the end... the only thing u're givin rating now is "quest leveling"...

Fine, now we know u do not do raids or u've never had fun in doin 'em...

They are rating 5.0 -5.1.. wow needs to be rated per patch. for instance 4.0 I give a 8, 4.1 a 1, 4.2 a 7 , 4.3 a 5

It was never Hardcore Vs Casual. It was Socialites Vs. Solo players

Originally Posted by ringpriest

World of Warcraft started life as a Computer Roleplaying Game, where part of the fun of the game experience was pretending to be your character. Stuff like applying poisons and eating food enhanced the verisimilitude of the experience of playing a fantasy character in another world. Now that game has changed to become a tactical arcade lobby game.

If WotLK and Cata got more than 9 for launch content then MoP deserves 10.

IGN recently changed their score system to bit more specific (I believe it used to be only x0/10 or x5/10 for few years..).

Thing is, wow is aging a lot nowdays for obvious reasons.
Thats not to say its bad or anything, but same stuff - "same old".
When Wotlk came about there was what? Warhammer and some smaller mmos competing, so some comparision was made to them.
Start of wotlk still managed to "hold the crown" etc. Warhammer was hotkey mmo still and one of things it brought was pvp..and huge pvp battlezones. Otherwise it was similiar..only like age of conan was new. Not sure when that came (after or before wotlk)

Cata had similiar - no huge mmos near it..just rift.
Rift was hotkey MMO too so no massive innovations there either - at the time at least (and rift came near 4.1 when cata review was done already)

Now MoP came around GW2 and SWTOR both of which pretty radically changed the style of MMORPG's so theres some comparision to be made (they cant strictly compare it to last expansion - they have to see how it compares with GENRE/Similiar in genre).
Swtor had different combat system, tho still hotkey. Also was focused on story a lot. Bigger bangs than warhammer or rift had for sure (tho kinda died out after few patches, which reviews cant and wont take notice of)
GW2 totally changed combat style, added pvp..well I'm sure we all know what its done and added. In short, GW2 was also big budget and game-changer.

So comparing MoP to gw2 and swtor..8.7 seems pretty good score.

"In the tone of their complaint you can see a mind already made up. Instead, it’s about affirmation they expected and didn’t receive. It’s not about the game getting universal praise from every writer reviewing it. It’s about getting universal praise for buying it."